Here is one Marxist view that sees much of the history of antisemitism and anti-Zionism as I have related it on this website. I am especially pleased that he makes a distinction between antisemitism and racism. Note that he faults the Left with failure to envision a post-capitalist society. Also that he is no Third Worlder.

However, I don’t see how he and other Marxists of my acquaintance can read Marx’s “On The Jewish Question,” and not see that Marx was himself guilty of that which Postone criticizes. I strongly recommend Frank E. Manuel’s short study, “Requiem for Karl Marx.” If anyone wants to criticize Manuel, himself a great historian and former Leftist (in the mid-1930s he left academe for a while to develop a curriculum for the labor movement, moreover he wrote a book in support of the Communist position in the Spanish Civil War), I welcome such a rational critique and will post it here.

Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for the conservative-libertarian National Review Online, wrote a popular intellectual history intended to remedy the common practice on the Left of characterizing Italian Fascism and Nazism as movements primarily of the Right. He tells me that he started formulating a book proposal in 2002, partly in response to his father’s ongoing concerns, partly in response to a talk by Michael Ledeen in the 1990s. It was published with endnotes in 2008 and became a runaway best-seller, a remarkable performance in itself. Perhaps reacting to the growth of the so-called “Tea-Party” movement in 2009, in late January of this year, some professional historians and journalists strongly objected to Goldberg’s thesis that Nazism and Fascism were entirely movements of the Left.

This and subsequent blogs will try to tease out the underlying narrative in JG’s book, one that was not spotted in the symposium mounted by History News Network on January 25, 2010 (with JG’s response January 28): briefly, Liberal Fascism is not only a crusade, a critique of “progressivism” as the eugenics-inspired spur to European“ fascism” and mass death in the twentieth century, but more deeply, LF is an attack on the science and “secularism” that have invaded the cultural space previously furnished with “traditionalism” by which JG means religion and undisputed paternal authority in the family: the consequence in JG’s text is an intrusive nanny-statism TODAY that is fascistically totalitarian and seeks to impose draconian rules on all aspects of everyday life, but most awesomely, will destroy “liberty” with the same resolve as the Jacobin mob and their spawn: Blackshirts, Brownshirts, and Bolshies. (See http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-israel/, for one possible source for the linkage between the French Revolution and the Soviet Union, particularly the first volume of Hobsbawm’s tetralogy, in which EH draws a straight line between the French Revolution and Leninism. In this he agrees with liberal Jacob Talmon or the conservative Catholic Francois Furet: see http://clarespark.com/2013/02/02/totalitarianism-polarization-and-single-issue-politics/.)

After reading the book twice, I maintain that the actual social structures and practices of the Third Reich and Italy under Mussolini (partly taken up by Robert Paxton in the HNN symposium) are of less concern to the author than “the smothering love” and feminized “niceness” of any American political faction that considers the national government to be a prospective locus for ameliorative reform and regulation. Like the most reactive Christians in history, but especially those who emerged after the Reign of Terror, JG seems to see “liberty” as the freedom for Everyman to suffer in this world, owing to (sinful) “human nature,” though I doubt that he has consciously taken his argument for “liberty” or the frictionless “pursuit of happiness” to its logical conclusion; he may simply be refuting the social engineering conception that man is infinitely malleable and that proper social organization will eliminate aggression and the will to power. That he blames Rousseau and the Jacobins for “totalitarianism” is everywhere apparent in his book. The Committee Of Public Safety has morphed into the Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA—and that specter and reality is where he has put his authorial energy. He would have stood on firmer ground had he blamed the social theorists of the eighteenth and nineteeth centuries, described so well in Frank E. Manuel’s The Prophets of Paris: Turgot, Condorcet, Saint-Simon and others who had no connection to the likes of Robespierre.* (For a related blog see http://clarespark.com/2009/07/04/unfinished-revolutions-and-contested-notions-of-identity/.)

[Added 4-4-10 and 4-6-10: Though I agree with much of what is in Liberal Fascism, it is not a work of history, for he does not reconstruct the historical context in which the various “fascisms” appeared. Ideas (e.g. “Jacobinism”) do not give birth to other ideas. JG could have, but did not, specify the class coalition with conservative nationalists that brought Hitler to power. By sticking with a left-wing genealogy for Hitler, he erases traditional right-wing support (support that was present during the Weimar Republic). Moreover, I have written extensively about “the progressives” and their role in formulating what we take to be mental health. What I found over a period of forty years is as alarming as anything in JG’s book. For instance “progressives” (who were really organic conservatives –“corporatist liberals”–adjusting to the growth of mass literacy and an industrial working class), because of their simultaneous support of “liberty” (e.g. dissent) and “community,” could immobilize persons who sought to make an original contribution to society. Some of that research is elsewhere on this website, but much of it can be found in my book Hunting Captain Ahab: Psychological Warfare and the Melville Revival, where I show how Melville identified the double bind in his own family, and how he was labeled insane by some in his family and in the writing of his academic revivers. (By double bind, I do not concur with Gregory Bateson’s definition that rests on the presence of a rejecting Janus-faced mother: rather the incompatible demands to be original in one’s discoveries, but not to disturb traditional institutional arrangements; to be both loyal to one’s country of origin and a member of an international “community”, and more.)

JG is on sounder ground when he critiques multiculturalism as derived from Herder. In my own work I trace Herder’s impact on German Romanticism and then nazism. JG should have said something about the dubious Herder-derived notions of national character and zeitgeist. He should have contrasted Herder’s rooted cosmopolitan and the rootless cosmopolitan of science and urbanity. But the possibly worst part of Liberal Fascism is the notion that some readers may absorb: that the entire Democratic Party is already entirely totalitarian, instead of incoherent, given the clashing elements inside the Democratic coalition. The Dems may be heading in that direction, but as a tactic to mobilize libertarian opposition, JG’s bleakness may create more apathy than informed resistance to illegitimate authority. And by constantly combining the word “liberal” with “fascism,” all statist activity is stigmatized, which would have amazed Hamilton, Hayek, and the Friedmans. ]

[Added 4-18-2010:] I am reading George E. Mowry’s excellent political and intellectual history of the period 1900-1912: The Era of Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of Modern America (originally published in 1958). The variability in what was considered to be “progressive” is laid out clearly. By contrast, the polemical and narrow focus of JG’s book becomes apparent. Given that Mowry and the other historians in the series of readers that Harper and Row published are writing within the progressive tradition, he (and probably they) are remarkably objective. Mowry brings the look of the period to life, and you will never read Edith Wharton again without seeing what a fatalist and traditional conservative she was.

[Added 4-23-10:] Mowry’s highly regarded account of the Republican Party contribution to progressivism certainly sees Theodore Roosevelt as a radical statist, but Mowry remains grounded in the period under study, and never calls T.R. style progressivism protofascist. I wish that journalists who write about politics today would be as attentive to detail and primary sources (and as broad in their interests) as did Mowry. This is a great book.

*Earlier critics than JG must have been comparing the welfare state to the various fascisms because Frank Manuel complained about the comparison in his The Prophets of Paris (1962): ” The specter of emotional and moral as well as scientific and industrial control hovers over the Saint-Simonian system, and Rousseau’s censor rears his ugly head. Nevertheless it seems farfetched to relate the Saint-Simonians on these grounds to the monster states of Hitler and Stalin. True, the Saint-Simonian political formulae emphasized emotion rather than reason, plus the hierarchy, an elite, the organic, and in this respect their theories bear superficial resemblance to the lucubrations of twentieth-century fascism. The ecclesiastical nonsense of the cult, however, should not obscure the fact that their image of society was founded first and foremost upon the expectation that there would be an upsurge of Eros in the world, that men would become more loving–a rather dubious assumption, though one that is not to be laughed out of court by the true skeptic. The Saint-Simonian society was founded upon relations of love among members of a hierarchy. This may be ridiculous, unfeasible, nonrational humbug, but it is totalitarian only in the sense that love may be. The Saint-Simonians were committed to the winning of converts solely through preaching and persuasion. To relate all the images of “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism” to these tender failures of the 1830s entails driving their ideas to conclusions they never entertained. Saint-Simonians talked and quarreled far more about love, all sorts of love, than they did about authority. They never spilled a drop of blood in their lives and in middle age became respectable bourgeois. There was something unique about the German experience under the Third Reich. Remembrance of it should not be diluted by the discovery of antecedents that are of a qualitatively different character. The Saint-Simonians may be cast into liberal hell, but there they will probably encounter as many lovers and passionately fixated men as Dante did in the Christian hell.” (p.184)

[Added 4-30-2010: JG has an article on Obama’s “neosocialism” in the May issue of Commentary. The phrase “liberal fascism” does not appear there. But he still does not know about the contribution of the organic thinkers of nineteenth-century France (some of whom were reconstructing a more secular Catholicism) to Marxism and twentieth-century political thought, including the creators of the welfare state. These are Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Comte. Manuel distinguishes their organicism from that of their predecessors Turgot and Condorcet, though the latter were strong advocates of a science-driven progressive future.]

These are my notes for a radio program I did for the Houston Pacifica radio station, KPFT. It is archived on Michael Woodson’s LivingArt show. I doubt that I got to all the points outlined here. As soon as I find the date of the actual program, I will post it here.

I can’t say enough about the work of Frank E. Manuel. Read his Scenes From The End, a poetic montage of his experiences in Germany ca. 1944-45 while he was an interrogator for the U.S. Army. Writers will love it as they should all his work. I am not enamored of most academics, but this one stands out as a great man and a great historian.

1. Review Jonathan Israel, Enlightenment Contested. Diderot: Pull out merging of self-love with social welfare and criticize from p.o.v. of Frank Manuel, two conflicting needs that may not be harmonized: self-development versus need for community. (Melville understood this conflict and confronted it throughout life.) Coerced harmony as a strategy of social democrats, presumably brought about by redistribution, better communication and diplomatic skills. My view: conflict is normal, harmony a dream that is realized in the arts that exemplify organic unity and the union of opposites, (paradox, ambiguity, irony). Many prior utopias were ascetic: luxury bred corruption and unwillingness to defend the social unit. In actually existing socialism, inability to produce consumer goods was turned into assault on “consumerism” in the corrupt capitalist democracies.

2. SHINE (supposedly the story of pianist David Helfgott). Do Jews control the movie industry? No: in general they have adapted to liberal Catholicism. Hollywood has elevated love and forgiveness as the cure-all for social problems that may be structural in nature. This film contrasts the Jewish father, vengeful, stern, pushy, and authoritarian with the various Christians who support the schizophrenic Helfgott through love and understanding, bringing him back into the beloved community. This is a sub-text that critics do not recognize, and is based on a misunderstanding of Judaism and the Hebraic forms of Protestantism. Jews and the religions that are grounded in the Old Testament, demand that the wrongs we do to others be recognized, then repented and reparations made. Apologies are not enough: we must change our behavior, repairing ourselves and the world.

3. The exploitation of the demonic and the paranoid style. The [Jewish] mad scientist as dominating our lives and the future. What is the appeal of horror movies or those that elevate gangsters such as The Sopranos? David Chase and his remark that “this country is run by gangsters.” In the process of socialization, we attempt to subdue our aggressive impulses or sublimate them through the arts or sports, but they are not extinguished. Hence the religion-based arts that exploit this sense that the anti-social, self-aggrandizing instincts are controlling us and are a constant threat. Such a feeling of pervasive invisible threats can lead us to immobility and the inability to act in our own self-interest. We trust no one (especially ourselves), and appropriate skepticism can devolve to cynicism and careerism. And worse, the real menaces in the outside world are not recognized, but are dismissed as the delusive products of capitalist and imperialist propaganda. We become putty in the hands of demagogues, including many in the classroom and in public media.

AUTHORS TO RECOMMEND: FRANK E. MANUEL (UTOPIAN THOUGHT IN THE WESTERN WORLD, REQUIEM FOR KARL MARX); SAUL FRIEDLANDER VOLUMES ONE AND TWO ON NAZIS AND JEWS (VOL.2 The years of persecution); anything by Walter Laqueur; Doug Macdonald on recent scholarship on Viet Nam that could change your mind: write to me and I will forward his essay on H-Diplo.